Article about the new Atari Asteroids Recharged arcade games. Has pictures and video

[TampaBay]

19 hours ago, ledzep said:

 

I don't think you realize that you agree with me here.  

 I most certainly don't agree with anything you've said. 

 

19 hours ago, ledzep said:

You're saying you would not play your imagined radically changed game if it did not have "Asteroids" in the name?  Why?  If it was called Rock Crush or Space Miner, had all the changes you imagine, it would be a waste of time because of the name?!  I don't think I ever played/avoided a game because of the name, I only cared about how it played.  Are you saying that modern gamers care more about names and eye candy? love graphics and big bright explosions).

What are you even talking about??  I didn't mention the relevance of the name of the game even one time in my posts.

 

19 hours ago, ledzep said:

Ok, so now you're telling me that if the original vector Star Wars game was converted to raster with brand new, modern shaded graphics and unchanged gameplay that that somehow transforms the game as some sort of more immersive experience?  

 Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you.  One million percent.  The same gameplay plus a giant screen that surrounds you that is displaying near-cinema quality graphics with surround sound of the movie's actual score IS absolutely, unequivocally more immersive, and saying that it's not is utterly preposterous.

 

19 hours ago, ledzep said:

When you play that new Star Wars Trilogy game are you actually spending significant time sightseeing the various rendered objects that are in the background? 

Yes, absolutely.  That's precisely what I'm doing.

 

19 hours ago, ledzep said:

How can you last more than 20 seconds while gawking at what's flying around shooting at you?  

 

Because my brain is perfectly and easily capable of doing more than two things at once, in this case skillyfully playing the game while also enjoying the graphics and sound.

[Giles N]

I always wondered why people on ISS would spend months on end, even half-a-year, orbiting the Earth, without gravity, and only eating and drinking, well-uhm-, recirculated bio-stuff…

 

But cunningly using the latest technology, I obtained pictures of what the allegedly tiny ISS-Observatory modules actually look like on the inside:

 

 

…and these folks are pretty well-paid to stay up there for 3-6 months… 

 
And here from what they refer to as ‘the captains wall-sleeping bag’ within wall-closet 4:

 

- - -

Thanks goes to ‘Wonder’ a very close friend of HAL-9000, both who informs me on quite a lot of matters. Sometimes even what I must do,as they put it. 

Edited April 6 by Giles N

[ledzep]

16 hours ago, TampaBay said:

I most certainly don't agree with anything you've said. 

 

Mmm hmm, You stated

 

"I think you can significantly change a game and many aspects from gameplay to graphics, while still being inspired by the original, so much so that a stranger walking by who never saw it before would say "hey, this cool new game really reminds me of Asteroids"."

 

That happened many times back in the late '70s/early '80s already, games like Galaga, Space Firebird, Phoenix and Moon Cresta being inspired by Galaxian yet having many aspects from gameplay to graphics being changed.  But they weren't called Galaxian Recharged and gamers played them even with new names.  Same with maze games inspired by Pac-Man and platformers inspired by Donkey Kong.

 

Asteroids Deluxe was so close to Asteroids that, of course, keep the "Asteroids" name.  Space Duel had enough significant changes that it got a whole new name.  Even Blasteroids had enough changes to it (clear levels, power-ups, raster graphics) that they at least modified the name.  Once a game is changed significantly enough, the name gets changed.  There are also games with clever names like Millipede (for a Centipede sequel) so that not everything is [game name] Deluxe or Super [game name], that gets old.  Gravitar, while obviously related to Lunar Lander, was so different that it got a new name.

 

Super Mario Brothers clearly is related to Donkey Kong but since it's such a different game, it gets a new name.

 

16 hours ago, TampaBay said:

What are you even talking about??  I didn't mention the relevance of the name of the game even one time in my posts.

 

Yes you did, you are insisting that Alan-1 should significantly change Asteroids Recharged from the original Asteroids game.

 

"For me, as long as its reminiscent of the original, I would prefer to see radical changes if someone is going to spend the time, energy, and massive financial investment to make a new version."

 

Why?  If you want a game so different why still attach "Asteroids" to it like they are?  Simply call it something else like I suggested, Rock Crusher or Space Miner or something.  People would look at it, see that it has floating rocks that you have to shoot (along with many changes), think "Ah, sort of like Asteroids" but be intrigued because it's different.  But you want Alan-1 to make an Asteroids Recharged that is significantly different from Asteroids.  You never suggested a new name.  Which means that the relevance of the name of the game matters.

 

The reason it's called Asteroids Recharged is because it's very very close to Asteroids.  The name creates the expectation of recognition.  Now, if Asteroids Recharged does well (I hope), I can see a "Super Asteroids" being made that builds off that and has more of the big changes like you want.  But the first move for a new Asteroids game after decades of nothing in arcades has to be close to Asteroids in order for any fans of the original to be attracted to it.  There is no other reason to call it Asteroids Recharged than because you hope fans of the original spend money on your new updated version.  Young players who have no attachment to the original Asteroids won't care what it's called so long as it's fun for them, only fans of the original will react to the name and have instant expectations of what they're looking at.  On the other hand, if it's really different like you wish for and called something like Space Miner then it will be evaluated solely on how it plays and how fun it is, no preconceived notions of gameplay.  Some classic Asteroids fans might love it, might not, but who cares since it's not called Asteroids in the first place, it's not aimed at that fanbase.

 

I already went over this with that horrible '80s version of the Dodge Challenger.  Everyone had the same reaction which was due solely to the name association.  Mitsubishi had already made that car with slightly different body panels and nobody cared because... it was called something else.  It succeeded or failed on its own merits.  But that new Challenger?  It's immediately compared to the previous Challenger, with predictable results.  Name recognition matters in terms of familiarity.

 

17 hours ago, TampaBay said:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you.  One million percent.  The same gameplay plus a giant screen that surrounds you that is displaying near-cinema quality graphics with surround sound of the movie's actual score IS absolutely, unequivocally more immersive, and saying that it's not is utterly preposterous.

 

Whoa, I didn't mention any of that shit, I said original vector Star Wars with the only change being a raster screen (19", I think, for that cabinet).  You immediately change that to giant screen that surrounds you that is displaying near-cinema quality graphics with surround sound?  That's not the original Star Wars game with raster graphics.  I mean, I can see why you would significantly change what I suggested in order to try to make your argument work but try again with only the one change I presented - the exact same '80s Star Wars game but swap out vector graphics for raster graphics, is it more immersive?

 

17 hours ago, TampaBay said:

Yes, absolutely.  That's precisely what I'm doing.

17 hours ago, TampaBay said:

Because my brain is perfectly and easily capable of doing more than two things at once, in this case skillyfully playing the game while also enjoying the graphics and sound.

 

You make my point.  The game is weak enough that it doesn't require your full attention, it's a clumsy movie not a difficult arcade game.  If you started sight-seeing while playing the vector original Star Wars you would quickly fly into something or get shot.  I can sight-see while playing those home Recharged Atari games, too, because they are also slow, non-challenging games with overpowered weapons.  I can't do that with the original arcade versions once they speed up.

 

I'm really hoping that Alan-1 doesn't pull that move with Asteroids Recharged, I hope that it is challenging enough that I have to pay real attention to it after the first couple minutes because if I start sight-seeing I'll get killed quick.  Just.  Like.  The. Original.  Asteroids.

[TampaBay]

13 minutes ago, ledzep said:

 

Mmm hmm, You stated

 

"I think you can significantly change a game and many aspects from gameplay to graphics, while still being inspired by the original, so much so that a stranger walking by who never saw it before would say "hey, this cool new game really reminds me of Asteroids"."

 

That happened many times back in the late '70s/early '80s already, games like Galaga, Space Firebird, Phoenix and Moon Cresta being inspired by Galaxian yet having many aspects from gameplay to graphics being changed.  But they weren't called Galaxian Recharged and gamers played them even with new names.  Same with maze games inspired by Pac-Man and platformers inspired by Donkey Kong.

 

Asteroids Deluxe was so close to Asteroids that, of course, keep the "Asteroids" name.  Space Duel had enough significant changes that it got a whole new name.  Even Blasteroids had enough changes to it (clear levels, power-ups, raster graphics) that they at least modified the name.  Once a game is changed significantly enough, the name gets changed.  There are also games with clever names like Millipede (for a Centipede sequel) so that not everything is [game name] Deluxe or Super [game name], that gets old.  Gravitar, while obviously related to Lunar Lander, was so different that it got a new name.

 

Super Mario Brothers clearly is related to Donkey Kong but since it's such a different game, it gets a new name.

 

 

Yes you did, you are insisting that Alan-1 should significantly change Asteroids Recharged from the original Asteroids game.

 

"For me, as long as its reminiscent of the original, I would prefer to see radical changes if someone is going to spend the time, energy, and massive financial investment to make a new version."

 

Why?  If you want a game so different why still attach "Asteroids" to it like they are?  Simply call it something else like I suggested, Rock Crusher or Space Miner or something.  People would look at it, see that it has floating rocks that you have to shoot (along with many changes), think "Ah, sort of like Asteroids" but be intrigued because it's different.  But you want Alan-1 to make an Asteroids Recharged that is significantly different from Asteroids.  You never suggested a new name.  Which means that the relevance of the name of the game matters.

 

The reason it's called Asteroids Recharged is because it's very very close to Asteroids.  The name creates the expectation of recognition.  Now, if Asteroids Recharged does well (I hope), I can see a "Super Asteroids" being made that builds off that and has more of the big changes like you want.  But the first move for a new Asteroids game after decades of nothing in arcades has to be close to Asteroids in order for any fans of the original to be attracted to it.  There is no other reason to call it Asteroids Recharged than because you hope fans of the original spend money on your new updated version.  Young players who have no attachment to the original Asteroids won't care what it's called so long as it's fun for them, only fans of the original will react to the name and have instant expectations of what they're looking at.  On the other hand, if it's really different like you wish for and called something like Space Miner then it will be evaluated solely on how it plays and how fun it is, no preconceived notions of gameplay.  Some classic Asteroids fans might love it, might not, but who cares since it's not called Asteroids in the first place, it's not aimed at that fanbase.

 

I already went over this with that horrible '80s version of the Dodge Challenger.  Everyone had the same reaction which was due solely to the name association.  Mitsubishi had already made that car with slightly different body panels and nobody cared because... it was called something else.  It succeeded or failed on its own merits.  But that new Challenger?  It's immediately compared to the previous Challenger, with predictable results.  Name recognition matters in terms of familiarity.

 

 

Whoa, I didn't mention any of that shit, I said original vector Star Wars with the only change being a raster screen (19", I think, for that cabinet).  You immediately change that to giant screen that surrounds you that is displaying near-cinema quality graphics with surround sound?  That's not the original Star Wars game with raster graphics.  I mean, I can see why you would significantly change what I suggested in order to try to make your argument work but try again with only the one change I presented - the exact same '80s Star Wars game but swap out vector graphics for raster graphics, is it more immersive?

 

 

You make my point.  The game is weak enough that it doesn't require your full attention, it's a clumsy movie not a difficult arcade game.  If you started sight-seeing while playing the vector original Star Wars you would quickly fly into something or get shot.  I can sight-see while playing those home Recharged Atari games, too, because they are also slow, non-challenging games with overpowered weapons.  I can't do that with the original arcade versions once they speed up.

 

I'm really hoping that Alan-1 doesn't pull that move with Asteroids Recharged, I hope that it is challenging enough that I have to pay real attention to it after the first couple minutes because if I start sight-seeing I'll get killed quick.  Just.  Like.  The. Original.  Asteroids.

 

For the sake of continuing this productively, let's start fresh without rehasing our old posts.  You're misinterpreting my comments inaccurately and you claim I'm doing the same to yours, so best to wipe the slate clean vs debating the meaning of old posts.  I'd rather continue anew.

 

I think the difference between how I view all of this is that I'm looking at the game purely from a business and financial money-making endeavour.  A conversation about the merits, pro's and cons of a home console version of Asteroids Recharged and a conversation about an arcade cabinet of Asteroids Recharged are two completely different conversations.  The consumer for each product is distinct.  There may be some overlap (people like me who own the home console version and will also give the arcade cabinet a try), but I'd venture to guess that the two sets of consumers will be pretty separate.  "Generally speaking" the largest portion of the total customer base visiting in-person arcades are the younger kids and modern gamers used to modern game features.  People like me and you who have a deep enthusiasm for the classics are few and far between in today's Family Entertainment Centers (FEC).  I'm still diffferent than you in that (it appears) you have a deep appreciation for purity of game play above all else (including graphics and sound).  An extension of that is that more modern games with simple gameplay that are all flash and glitz with no substance seem to disgust you.  Fair enough.  I have no problem with your position on that.  I love the purity of the classics and the focus on gameplay as well.  That said, I don't mind the completely mindless escapism of more modern "games" if you can even call them that.  That Draken's game which is nothing more than a scaled down Disney ride with a light gun for show (and so they can semi-call it a "game") looks super fun to me.  Where am I going with all this?  I want Alan-1 to make money (or whoever profits from this, from the manufaturer to of course the arcade operator, someone like Shaggy).  The lens I'm viewing this through is not "Is this a game that is primarily about purity of gameplay and a good represenation of the Asteroids intellectual property?"  The lens I'm viewing it through is, "Will this game put money in Shaggy's pocket and food on his table?"  I'm not the one who chose a home console game Asteroids Recharged and decided to spend a small fortune to turn it into an arcade cabinet.  That's Alan-1 and / or whoever made those decisions.  Once you create something that's made for an arcade that costs the operator a cool $15,000, that game is now part of a business.  And this is where it gets ugly.  Right here.  This is where the decisions are made about how much to "sell out".  What is the balance between purity of gameplay and faithfulness to the original on one end of the spectrum, and total cheeseball over-the-top shallow glitz and flashing lights at the other.  That's not my call to make.  All I can do, as a fan of someone like Shaggy whose livelihood depends on making smart decisions about these things, is hope the creators strike the right balance.  This is where you an I diverge.  From a purely business perspective, I think the creators could have and should have leaned more into making it appealing to the masses, younger generation, and modern gamer.  I think they should have "sold out" more.  Do I think that would make it a better game?  No.  Definitely not.  Do I think it would represent the Asteroids IP in a better manner?  No.  Do I think it would be a more financially successful investment for the arcade operator?  Yes, I do.  And it's unfortunate that one has to trade integrity for better cash flows, but that's the nature of the business.  I don't like it, and I can guarantee that you don't like it even more than me.  But that's where the industry has moved to.  The reality is this:  Let's say they made this cabinet along the same "spectrum of integrity" that it is now (which is to say somewhat faithful to the original) and the choices they made and the features you want were all in there you absolutely loved the game.  You thought the cabinet was perfect.  Well unfortunately there are simply not enough of you and me visiting arcades frequently to make that a financially successful cabinet in the arcade.  I would love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.  So my position remains the same.  I would have liked to have seen the creators push the enevelope as far as possible toward creating a cabinet that would be financially successful by appealing to the modern gamers, while doing their best to not push it so far that it becomes totally unrecognizeable as Asteroids.  I didn't pick the game, none of this was my idea.  I'm just saying out loud, since the game was picked by other people, what I think needs to be done to make it financially successful.  It's not an ideal situation.  An updated faithful reproduction of Asteroids with excellent gameplay would likely be a total flop at the arcade.  I didn't make the rules, I'm just out there in the wild observing.  Later this year, we'll have hard data to see how it all played out.